Economic morale, agility and the raised finger pointing

From philosophy to psychology to neuroscience, there are many approaches to explaining moral action and moral aspiration. All our activities in the social structures in which we move are shaped by norms. The values, the world view and the conception of man are closely interrelated and based on a very individual understanding of reason. Our values are derived from our personal understanding of what we believe to be true statements about the world.

In the discussion about organizational development and leadership, moral issues play an explicit role surprisingly rarely. When business ethics or business morality is discussed, the focus is mostly on the questions "What do I sell by what means, where, and to whom?" and possibly still on "How are my intermediate products created?" and less on "How do I treat the people in an organization?" - unless we are talking about such excesses as child labor or slavery. Thus, it is rather the external effects of the economically acting units that are examined and less the inner life of the same.

Interestingly, things are different in the environment of agile organizational development. Time and again, I see people who advocate agility in organizations being accused of making a moral claim about both the quality of social interactions and the shape of the organization.

For example, I heard the following in a recent podcast:

"As far as the control fantasies of the agile approach, I'm absolutely skeptical. I'm not someone who would say agile is just right for every organization, and I'm also skeptical of this slightly empathetic impetus of a lot of agile theory or conception ... empathetic in the sense of: There always actually resonates something so slightly normative ..." [1]

Elsewhere, I encountered the following statement in a publication:

"The normative use of the (agile) concept of culture seems rather to serve the exaltation of one's own doing (the agiles do everything right, the others do everything wrong)" [2]

The analysis of the behavior of certain representatives of the agile guild expressed in these statements is not wrong. I myself have also been able to observe something similar.

But in the end, these are only evaluative paraphrases. Much more exciting is the clarification of the causes. For me, the following questions arise:

• The accusation against agilists is, in my perception, unique in the context of representatives of organizational and process models. Is there a particular relationship between agile and specific morals, and if so, what are they?
• No one appreciates being confronted with a raised finger. What mistake is made when this impression is created?
• We all have a value system that determines our actions. In what way may or should this even influence our involvement in organizational development issues?

In the next sections, we will now attempt to approach answering these questions in the order presented. The first challenge we need to solve is to establish a common understanding of the concept of agility at least to the extent that a statement about moral implications of the same is possible.

Too much room for interpretation at the meta level

The overarching concept of agility is regrettably diffuse. In its superficial interpretation, therefore, depending on the point of view, both the accusation of a tautological value proposition [5] and the assignment of the essential characteristics that are understood as the hallmarks of a management fashion [6] can apply.

The reason for this is that "agility" incorporates a wide variety of management and organizational development approaches from the last 70 years. This contributes persistently to its ambiguity [7]. In consensus, all definitions more or less revolve around the holistic ability of an organization to efficiently maximize customer value through willingness to change, ability to learn, adaptability, and quality awareness. On the level of the organizational and human image, strong influences of systems theory, New Work in the sense of Bergmann [10] and derivations from the basic idea of servant leadership by Greenleaf [11] can also be identified.

Even if a certain basic attitude seems to be recognizable despite the considerable vagueness, there remains too much room for interpretation to derive an agile worldview with a value system from this perspective.

Clarification through reverse engineering

Agile methods at the practical level, on the other hand, are clearly defined and well described. Therefore, "reverse engineering" of the visible manifestations of the use of these methods is a good way to grasp what should be meant by agility at the meta level if there is a belief in the effectiveness of the methods.

Agile methods are consistently characterized by ...

• ... the requirement for transparency,
• ... the implementation of an iterative approach,
• ... regular self-reflection,
• ... the necessity of a readiness to make mistakes [8],
• ... at least team-oriented, rather even individual readiness to take over responsibility.

from. This is certainly not complete, but in my estimation it is capable of consensus. It is possible to work with this basis.

A value system and a world view are emerging

Transparency requires honesty, openness and trust in others. Trust cannot be built if people do not treat each other with mutual respect. The willingness to make mistakes is also inconceivable without a trusting basis for cooperation.

This, in combination with the demand for an iterative approach and the willingness to self-reflect, suggests that we have the courage to make mistakes and thus also to try out things that are uncertain. Without curiosity as a basic trait, this would be pointless. Since iterative work requires partial goals, a short- to medium-term focus is necessary. The willingness to take responsibility for one's own actions requires honor. Focus in combination with honor comes very close to the willingness to commit oneself, also called "commitment" in English.

The belief in the fact that such a system can be functional presupposes a specific view of man as well as a view of the world. It must be assumed that human beings are autonomous and that we grant them dignity (in the Kantian sense in each case) - anything else would be in contradiction to honest, open, respectful and trusting dealings with one another. The pronounced team orientation suggests the common understanding that cooperation of all participants forms the basis for achieving the best possible results. Self-reflection and retrospection in an iterative approach indicates that we are convinced that we can learn from the past (this suggests a reliance on empiricism) and that we can communicate about the world at least intersubjectively. At the same time, however, our attainable understanding of the world is limited, otherwise we would not have to proceed iteratively but could infer the future.

This can undoubtedly be elaborated further. For our purposes, however, at this point I believe we have gained sufficient clarity about which worldview I follow and which value system must determine my own actions when I turn to agility.

What is special about agility

In principle, there is nothing originally new about the outlined agile thinking with regard to the view of the world. It follows the Enlightenment in the Kantian sense, bears traits of critical rationalism according to Popper and weaves in a touch of postmodernism through the skeptical attitude toward the feasibility of complete system analyses and planning derived from them. This component also brings the approach to radical constructivism that is reflected in the agilists' flirtations with systems theory.

What is special is that precisely the elementary methods of agility, such as Scrum and meanwhile also Kanban, require for the full development of their effectiveness an "acting out" of this view of the world and of human beings in a context of life - working life - that is associated in perceived reality with other value systems. The standard experience of employees is precisely not that they encounter each other openly, honestly and with mutual trust. And to stay with Kant: The employee in the company is only too willingly regarded exclusively as a means and less as an end ...

This discrepancy between the lived value systems in companies and the expected, undoubtedly people-oriented value system of agility leads to the accusation of the "empathic impetus" towards agility, which I quoted at the beginning.

The first of the questions posed - the question of a special relationship between agility and morality - should thus be clarified. Agilists pursue a specific worldview, from which a value system is derived, which is often not or only partially reflected in companies. The discrepancy between the agile claim and the perceived reality is greater than it was and is with other, modern management approaches (e.g., Total Quality Management or Management by Objectives). This leads to the special perception of the link between agility and moral claim.

Turning away from dogmatism

Let's turn to the second question. How does the agilists' raised forefinger come about? What promotes the normative presumption?

There are two reasons for this, and they are intertwined. The first reason is related to what I quoted at the beginning as a tautological formulation of values. As an agilist, when I talk about agile mindset, I am referring to the value system, which is what I described earlier: honesty, openness, trust, etc.

No one seriously ascribes the opposite characteristics to themselves and then considers this to be a healthy basis for collaboration. If I, as an outsider, am confronted with this claim as the basis of the promise of salvation of agility in a company, I can only assume - since the organization is not yet agile - that I am being implicitly accused of precisely this, the systematic violation of these values. That I feel attacked is only too natural.

The second reason is related, as mentioned. With the discourse on a level of values and attitudes, the argument remains metaphysical - as a recursive attempt to explain the world from observation of what we ourselves have created in order to be able to find our way in the world. It lacks the link to something commonly experienced, which could then form the anchor point for all comprehensible deductions. Thus I remain on the level of faith and rightly see myself exposed to the reproach of being dogmatic.

The answer to the second question can thus regrettably only be answered as follows: The mediation approaches of agility are often wrong. Discussions of values that are detached from reality and based on dogma and implicit accusations of moral misconduct are rarely suitable seeds for self-critical reflection. Rather, defensive reactions are pre-programmed.

Talking about what is speakable

This development can be approached by moving on two levels in my guidance for change in argumentation. On the one hand, the level of the experiential lends itself, here I then encourage analysis and reflection on practiced practices, their effects in the organization, and present alternatives that would result from an agile attitude. The exchange can, but does not have to refer to methods and certainly does not move on a value level.

The second level of address is that of worldview. This, too, is capable of discourse in a simpler way because the inference to values appears only indirect and contextual. If I recognize that my counterpart is a strict rationalist with a Hobbesian view of man ...

"(in the state of nature man) is in a war of each against each" [9].

... then I don't need to come to him with iterative approach and an appeal of trust in fellow men. But reflecting together on the different points of view and their necessary, organizational consequences can have a very helpful effect and possibly also contribute to a change of attitude.

Relativism is no solution either

You don't have to be an agilist to be normative. We are all permanently so; what is decisive is the dimension of the urge for validity with which we represent our moral ideas and our world view. So the final question remains to be answered: To what extent may and should this urge for validity play a role when I participate in an organizational development?

Of course, I can try to adopt a certain ethical relativism. System theorists in particular tend to do this, as is also made clear in the podcast quoted at the beginning, in distinction to the normative claim in agile thinking.

"As a systemicist, I don't care ... the main thing is that it is viable for the customer" [1].

In fact, system theorists defend themselves against the accusation of ethical relativism by deriving general principles of utility, such as.

"Always act in such a way that the number of possibilities increases." [3]

or

"Whatever I do will eventually and somehow fall back on me." [4]

which, first, can also gain normative character, second, seems like a foreign body in a theory that is radically constructivist, and third, with the evaluation criterion of viability in an economic context, has for me strong utilitarian features. Despite all twists and turns, one insight remains for me: We cannot escape morality in a social system!

Don't be shy!

Coming back to the last question I asked, I would like to answer it in two ways, on the one hand on an abstraction level as a long-time entrepreneur and executive, and on the other hand as someone who counts himself as an agilist.

As an entrepreneur and executive, I very much appreciate working with people who have strong convictions, even if they take on the role of an external consultant. It is important to me that the confrontation does not amount to a confrontation of dogmas - which, as we have seen in the previous sections, is indeed avoidable.

As an agilist, I appear full of self-confidence and am fully aware of the moral impetus in the basic stance. However, I do not consider this to be wrong either, since this attitude, especially with regard to the conception of values and the image of man, is, as I understand it, in complete agreement with the values of our liberal and social Western democracy. In addition, I can hardly claim values such as courage, honesty and openness - despite all my efforts to connect with existing behavior in order to achieve my goals - if I lack any readiness for confrontation.

This willingness to confront is all the more important because, in my observation, the values lived in organizations and companies often do not correspond to the values of our society. Concepts based on chains of command have a high susceptibility to violating people's dignity and autonomy and are more likely to find a counterpart in autocracies at the societal level.

Even though I avoid the raised forefinger, I do my best to point out this frequently observed inner contradiction between a leader's understanding of organization and leadership and his or her personal view of the world and values, which he or she actually carries within him or her as a convinced member of our society. If we succeed in uncovering this schizophrenia, we observe far-reaching consequences that affect not only the organization in the medium to long term, but above all the personal happiness of the executive himself.

External values as a mirror of internal values.

With this, I have answered the third question. Even if it does not serve the cause to be super-teachy, a lived and comprehensibly articulated value system is something that for me cannot or should not be kept out of an organizational development. In any case, even if there is no consensus in this discussion, the discourse helps a great deal in delineating boundaries and awakening mutual understanding.

Finally, I would like to go one step further and support this picture with a thesis. An organization that follows agile values in its structure and in its dealings with people will also have fewer problems following the same standards in its external economic impact. In my experience, it is easier to live with an internally consistent value system that is not only applied situationally and contextually.

If this view is correct, this would be another reason to talk about the lived values within an organization. If there is indeed a feedback loop between a company's inner values and their external representation in the form of services and products, it is of overriding social interest that the inner development of values is actively continued. And this does not mean signing compliance rules!

Sources

[1] Zapp, Florian; Schenkenberg, Martin mit dem Gast Terborg, Nils, Podcast “Systemisch - Agil” mit dem Titel “Systemisch agiles Arbeiten”, 5.5.2023

[2] Wiesmann, Dirk, “Die Zerst?rung der Agilit?t”, Informatik Spektrum (2022), 45:366-371

[3] von Foerster, Heinz, P?rksen, Bernhard, “Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners”, Carl Auer Verlag, 1998

[4] Gergen, Kenneth, “Konstruierte Wirklichkeiten: Eine Hinführung zum sozialen Konstruktivismus”, Kohlhammer Verlag, 2002

[5] Kühl, Stefan, “Tücken der agilen Organisation”, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3LDABxF96c&t=758s

[6] Miller, Danny; Harwick, John, “Spotting Management Fads”, Harvard Business Review, Oktober 2002

[7] F?rster, Kerstin; Wendler, Roy, “Theorien und Konzepte zu Agilit?t in Organisationen”, Dresdner Beitr?ge zur Wirtschaftsinformatik, Nr. 63/12, Universit?t Dresden

[8] Barth, Stefan, “Vom Umgang mit Fehlern”, 2022, https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/vom-umgang-mit-fehlern-dr-stefan-barth/?trackingId=HFVG%2BxiYQKKfNGjUFWMmIw%3D%3D

[9] Noller, J?rg, “Theorien des B?sen”, Junius Verlag GmbH, 2017, S. 50

[10] Bergmann, Frithjof, “Neue Arbeit, neue Kultur”, arbor Verlag, 2004

[11] Greenleaf, Robert K., “The Servant as Leader”, Center of Servant Leadership, Erstausgabe 1970